Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Game’ Category

I’ve never been on board with the habit of calling or texting a girl before a date to confirm that it’s still on. I get the idea of it — if she’s about to flake, you save yourself the hassle and indignity of getting caught out alone — but practical considerations aside, the very act of confirming dates conveys lower value. Assuming the sale means assuming she’ll be there at the agreed upon time. It doesn’t mean assuming she forgot, or she might not show, and you have to double check to be sure her oh-so-busy schedule still allows time for your meager and annoying company.

Given the inherent DLV of date confirmations, men are advised to avoid the practice altogether or, if circumstances require confirming a date, to confirm with sly obliqueness that sidesteps the trap of self-betatization.

On the subject, a reader asks,

Long time reader here who has improved game, life style and understanding of women in general.  Here’s my question.  I always find it DLV to confirm a first date with a new girl, and have devised a few C&F methods, but here’s a new one I seek your opinion on.  I send a text a few hours before the date:

ME: I already have plans for tonight, but I’m free tomorrow night

HER: what/ok/whatever

ME: Wrong person, obviously I have plans with you tonight.

It does 2 things – 1. Shows that maybe another girl is reaching out to you and 2. You’re actually confirming.

Thoughts? A better version?

TIA

This is a twisted version of Reverse Eavesdropping Game. It’s a manipulative ploy to project high male mate value by (not so subtly) insinuating the fullness of your dance card. And, as the reader has noted, it’s a sneaky method to confirm a date with a girl without appearing like you called to confirm.

The difficulty with this tactic is the substantial risk of transparency. How obvious is it that your text was actually meant for her and not for another imaginary girl? The less obvious, the better Reverse Eavesdropping Game works. If you think the context is right and the impression you left with her is congruent with the believability of these texting tricks, then give it a whirl. Otherwise, I’d say skip this style of overwrought sneaky fucker texting and try these alternatives to confirming dates instead:

1. The preemptive “I’ll be late” gambit.

Need to confirm a date? Not sure if she’ll show up? Text her a few hours beforehand to tell her you’ll be late.

“just letting you know i’ll be ten minutes late. don’t be tragically sad.”

The beauty of this trick is that it simultaneously makes you seem higher value (you’ve got a busy life) while leaving the door open for her to announce an intention to flake if that was her plan. You aren’t confirming anything; you’re assuming she’ll be there. Her reply will be either “ok” in which case you have pretty good evidence she’ll show up or, if she was planning to cancel, she’ll be trapped in a corner where she either has to baldly lie (most girls won’t do this) or fess up that she won’t make it.

2. The “Wear something cute” gambit.

This is a classic PUA end-run around a potential flake. You text, “Wear [X] and [X] tonight” a couple hours before the date. No direct confirmation, no DLV. The assumption of her presence at the agreed time and place is tacit. If she doesn’t reply, she’s lost interest and is likely going to flake. If she does, her reply will tell you enough about her intention, or lack thereof, to show up that you can cease any further communication until you’re face-to-face with her (or until you’ve deleted her number).

Hope this helps!

Read Full Post »

If you ever receive a dubious excuse from a girl who has cancelled a date at the last second, the best reply is an ambiguous one that could be interpreted as either sarcastic disbelief or sincere sympathy. For example,

GIRL: Sorry I can’t make it! My grandma fell and can’t get up. I have to take her to the hospital.

YOU: wow

That’s it. The insidious beauty of this one word reply is that, in the event her excuse was genuine, your muted exclamation can easily fill in as a plausible expression of condolence. If she’s lying, she’ll be psychologically self-groomed to interpret your “wow” as a jerkboy dismissal, and your value to her as a sexual being will go up.

“wow” is a great all-purpose ambiguous message that can springboard into all sorts of flirty conversation.

YOU: wow

GIRL: You don’t believe me? No really my grandma fell.

YOU: ok. say hi to grandma for me.

or…

YOU: wow

GIRL: don’t be such an asshole.

YOU: wow that sucks. I hope she feels better.

You can really screw with a girl’s head if you’re familiar with the art of ambiguity.

Read Full Post »

Gaming Mediocre Girls

Yes, I know what some of you are thinking. “Game mediocre girls?! What’s the point? That’s like learning how to appreciate the aroma of a turd bouquet.”

This electro-retreat tries to stay as close as possible to practical advice that would work in the real world. In the real world, most men are not banging out 9s and 10s (for the simple reason that there aren’t nearly enough 9s and 10s to service all the men who want them). In the real world, some men are huge nerds. As CH has written before, game, like all male attractiveness traits sans perhaps fame, has its limits. Notwithstanding tout-able exceptions to the contrary, all else equal game will not enable the typical male 3 to date female 8s on a long-term basis.

Given that plain-as-day premise (and yes, I know there are game maestros who joyously flout the fat part of the bell curve), there remains a healthy market for the placid love of mediocre girls who are, after all, not fugs nor morbidly obese Beelzeblobs.

Short primer
Untouchables: 0,1
Uglies: 2,3
Mediocrities:4,5,low 6
Cuties: high 6,7
Hotties: 8,9,10

In the arena of accelerated seduction, comparative SMVs matter. Half of men are starting from a low spot in the male sexual hierarchy, from where a bounce up to dating 5s or 6s would represent for them considerable improvement in their romantic fortunes.

This post, then, is for those men. It’s quick and dirty game for the mediocrities and, to a lesser extent, the cuties who have not yet had their egos inflated past their psi burst risk. Game doesn’t need to do much to make a man much happier than he ever imagined he could be. If a low SMV man is sadly accustomed to dating 3s, the joy of dating 5s regularly will make him feel like the luckiest man on earth. (At least until he gets bored of the 5s.)

Gaming mediocre girls is, in the general, a less purposefully antagonistic affair than gaming hotter girls. This is because middling chicks have lower self-esteems and thus don’t require the verbal feints and parries that hotter girls need to feel excited about a man.

The above betacentric generality loses relevance if the SMVs between the man and the mediocrity are close. That is, a male 8 gaming a female 5 will need more front-loaded beta reassurance game to make her feel like he is attainable and sincerely interested in her. For him, simple compliments on her sense of style can open the floodgates to speed seduction.

But a man who is closer in SMV to a mediocre 5, or even lower SMV than her, will have to game her like she’s a 7. However, my travels across the dating landscape have revealed a peculiarity to gaming mediocrities: Many are so beaten down by the pump and dumps they’ve suffered that they need to hear a nice thing before they’ll be receptive to any sort of pickup attempt.

The key is how your “nice” opener is framed. It can’t be chucked into the air like a hail mary pass. It can’t be sappy. It can’t be trite. Instead, try this:

“You seem like a happy person. That’s not a bad thing.”

To a genuinely upbeat girl, this will provoke a smile. Technically, it’s a compliment. But it’s also a very subtle neg and frame control; you’re short-circuiting her instinct to assume she’s being patronized, while guiding her to a conversation on your terms.

Even compliments can be massaged by game so that they are more effectively delivered. If you’re a nerd for whom 5s and 6s are a dream come true, game for mediocre girls who otherwise wilt under the heat of intense seduction techniques may be something you should consider adding to your traditional pickup repertoire.

Read Full Post »

Keychain Game

Valued commenter Reservoir Tip relays,

I’ve been toying with this game method for a little while now, and think it’s pretty solid.

When a date and I are sitting down, I grab her keychain, and say, “Ya know… You can tell a lot about a girl by what she keeps on her keychain.”

Sucks them right in. Then you go on to analyze all the little trinkets she keeps on it. College girls’ keychains are practically cat o nine tails with all the junk they have hanging off them. Found a girls AA token on a keychain last night, and it had her qualifying herself to me for the next ten minutes.

Keychain Game.

As practical game advice, the phrase “You can tell a lot about a girl by [X]” (or its variant, “I can tell a lot about you by [X]“) is highly concentrated and purified chick crack.

Chick crack is any conversation topic or titillating segue that engages girls so powerfully they forget to act bored or shit test you. Cold reads like Keychain Game fall into this category, as does any ruse which implicitly recognizes a girl’s natural solipsism and entrancement with her own uniqueness.

The best thing about chick crack, besides its ability to pry taciturn pouters, are the opportunities for negs, teasing and disqualifications once the girl starts giddily reveling in her psychological diagnosis. Per Mr. Tip, the more a girl loves herself, the better you can leverage her self-love into self-surrender.

Read Full Post »

Assume The Sale Game

Here’s a conversation I had with a girl on the night we met. Some details have been redacted to protect the devilish.

Little Lord Lucifer: Go over there and do [X] for me.

Girl: And what would I get out of that?

Little Lord Lucifer: My approval.

Girl: (waits a beat, audibly snorts) Your approval! What does that even mean?

Little Lord Lucifer: It means exactly what it sounds like.

Twenty seconds of me warmly smiling and her accusing me of being “full of it” and “a psycho” elapse. Suddenly, she looks at me with widened eyes, her mouth opens a little, she cocks her head, and gets up to do [X]. She returns, mission accomplished.

Girl: (with feigned deference) Did I perform to your expectations, oh great one?

Little Lord Lucifer: Yes. Thanks. I approve.

Girl: (sarcastically) Oh, I am SO relieved to be in your good graces!

***

Now, there’s a couple sociosexual dynamics going on here. There’s the obvious one that she did the thing I asked of her. Sarcastic intent notwithstanding to the contrary, I raised a hoop and she jumped through it. All that her consent required was my rock-solid frame and confidence that she would do it. Overconfidence is the heart of game.

Two, even when humorous or sarcastic intent guides a woman’s compliance — as if she was role-playing for the amusement of both of you — the physical motions of going through with the request will generate real feelings in her of slightly lower value and submission to a higher value man. This phenomenon is like the inverse of power poses, where instead of elevating one’s confidence and self-assurance through behavioral cues, one evokes feelings of submission and deference through “powerlessness poses.”

All of this psychological legerdemain acts on the abacus of subconscious mate evaluation. PUAs call it subcommunication, and it’s a powerful, if mischievous, means of strengthening attraction in women.

Read Full Post »

Reframing

Here’s an example of the utility of reframing to domains outside the sphere of pickup. Reader PA asks,

What is a good, short, SFW [safe for work] response to the 77% [pay gap] lie?

Other than “it’s not true if type of profession, years of experience, and overtime are factored in.”

PA is right to tacitly assert that an effective reframe to a ridiculous but widely-believed PC lie should be short and sweet and digestible. References to arid data or statistical qualifications won’t win over the common plebe or plebette.

One reason why anti-Cathedral dissidents rarely get traction in these sorts of arguments they should be winning handily is that they don’t know how to package their pushback in a way that makes it more receptive to the part of the listening audience who aren’t brain-dead true believers. What is true for seduction is true for persuasion. Terse charm >>> loquacious insistence.

So in that vein, some persuasive, office-friendly reframes to the 77% pay gap lie would be:

“You say that like it’s men’s fault.”

“And secretaries only make 10% of CEOs. We should narrow that gap too.”

“Motherhood really competes with work.”

“Handouts would fix the problem.”

I welcome the readers to add their own pay gap myth reframes.

***

PS On a related subject, change is a-blowin’ in the wind, my friends. It’s small change, but something is definitely happening. I’ve noticed of late a certain reticence by the boyfriends of SWPL girls to robotically agree with their girlfriends’ feminist boilerplate. Instead of the usual head nodding and “yes, yes”s whenever their girls babble feminist cant, these once-sackless wonders have begun to look off into the distance impatiently, and their blank expressions betray conversation thread-killing neutrality. It’s not the CH-style shiv, but it’s better than total supplication.

I’d like to think that the Chateau message is finally influencing the zeitgeist; if so, we may be cresting the horizon to revolution, and moving into a brighter, sunnier, more unapologetically erect day.

Read Full Post »

Perspicacious and numerate commenter “St” writes in response to this post about Shakespeare having his male characters utter fewer words than their romantic female counterparts,

CH,

I hope you realize that 101/155 = 65.1%

Which is disturbingly close (1.6%) to the 2/3 male-to-female text communication ratio you advise.

If that’s not another exogenous vindication of Chateau principles, I don’t know what is.

“St” is referring to CH’s Poon Commandment V:

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

It appears that CH, knowingly or unwittingly ;), stumbled upon a deep and abiding truth about sex, love and the erotic nature of women that was known to the literary greats of the distant past.

Heartiste and Shakespeare… truly, madly, deeply in ❤️!

Read Full Post »

Women of all (pre-menopausal) ages and all social strata are fascinated by mental parlor tricks. They enjoy the self-revelatory aspect of psychological quizzes, and especially those versions which summon the senses and amplify the feels. Once a girl is emotionally charged, it’s a simple matter to anchor her good feelings to your company.

Today, I will reveal a very special game routine that as far as I am aware exists nowhere else in the game literature. It is a proprietary and leather patented CH blend of neural witch-craftery that engages girls so powerfully they won’t want you to stop. This routine — what I call the Imagination Test — is ideal during that getting-to-know-each-other phase of the pickup, (or what PUAs call the comfort stage). You could try to use it at any time during a pickup, though; the routine is designed to work within a broad array of contexts.

The premise is uncomplicated. Like an acting class instructor, you guide the girl through various sensual exercises simulating brief scenarios or actions that you choose at your discretion. For example,

“Imagine you’re holding an ice cream cone and the scoop falls out to the ground. Feel your face change as your disappointment rises.”

Or,

“Imagine it’s midnight and you hear a loud knock at the door. All the lights are out and you have no idea who it could be.”

The gist of this routine is to heighten the emotions that a girl feels in your presence. The mere evocation of sensual stimuli will produce authentic elevations in her emotional calibration, much the same way that adopting power poses will produce real elevations in a man’s testosterone level and feeling of confidence. Couple the mimetic onslaught with a shrewdly anchored hand to thigh or forearm and when she recollects her dreamy night feeling the fuzz of an imaginary peach you concocted from thin air, her mind will travel a short hop from fruit to you, farmer of emotions.

By getting a girl to essentially play-act imaginary stimuli recruiting one or all the senses, her mind opens to further exploration with you and she becomes quite a bit more pliable to your commands, (a pliability to which she secretly yearns to release herself). The Imagination Test is, besides a stimulant for bored girls’ wary ennui, a demonstration of your creativity and originality. Rest assured, there are few men riding these kinds of thought trains through the stony skulltunnels of girls just met. Women are always looking for men set apart; this routine is one way to accomplish that.

The hard part is not the routine itself, but the sophisticated segue you must have to open an unweird social space for the routine. A couple of springboards I use that work well:

“Are you interested in learning a little bit about yourself?”

Or

“Many girls can get by on their looks, but not many can get by on their imaginations. How good is your imagination?”

Neither segue is failsafe verbillade, but they’ll get the job done often enough.

Further examples of the Imagination Test:

Imagine yourself…

stroking a puppy’s belly.
searching through a dark attic with a flickering flashlight.
holding a pigeon to your chest.
seeing a loved one for the first time in a long time.
overhearing your parents having sex.
catching a whiff of a man’s cologne.
smelling freshly mown grass.
tasting something you hate.
feeling an ice cube on your neck (or breast, if mood permits).
massaging a lover’s face.
letting rose petals slip through your fingers.
wrapped in a sheer satin curtain.
breaking warm bread fresh out of the oven.
gently tracing the face of your grandmother.
rolling your fingertips over a strong back (substitute female body part if you think she’d be down for the FFM).
biting into a juicy sweet melon.
revealing yourself naked for the first time to someone you love.

After your hypnotized hussy has gamely visualized and phantom experienced your sensate novellas, the opportunity is rich for a well-placed neg or a grudging acceptance of her imaginative, if unexpected, spark. Too, there is the chance to reveal to her (fib, really) what her mien during the exercises says about her personality (feel free to wing it here). As long as it’s about her and her centrality to the cosmos, she’ll feel that ever-present but slyly nebulous “connection” that women so love and that men strive to fabricate for slits and tingles.

Your post-thespian responses can run the gamut:

“When you tasted the food you hated, your mouth made this funny snarl, like a dog trying to lick away peanut butter.”

“When you smelled the grass, you had this incredibly serene look. What was it that made you so contented?”

“You put your hands behind your back when you imagined being naked. This small movement tells me you want no obstacles between yourself and a lover.”

***

Seduction comes in three stages for a reason: it’s the rediscovery of a natural mating rhythm that has likely remained unchanged for eons beyond memory. Now you, reader, imagine a woman’s heart as a pot of water on the stove. You tease her and challenge her to turn on her burner. You draw her in with words festooned in emotional garland to warm her lifeblood. You raise her temperature with feints toward the gas jet until she is boiling over. Tease, engage, escalate.

TEASE. ENGAGE. ESCALATE.

Maxim #20: First, lead by defying. Then, lead by inspiring. Finally, lead by desiring.

All steps, however abbreviated, must come in their order to inflame her curiosity, just as your eyes must travel the expanse of her body and the inflection points of her face, and your ears receive the chirp of her voice, to form the full measure of your lust.

Read Full Post »

Romeo Had Game

A dataslut at FiveThirtyEight tallied the lines each pair of characters spoke to each other and found that Romeo was following Poon Commandment V.

Juliet speaks 155 lines to him, and he speaks only 101 to her. His reticence toward Juliet is particularly inexcusable when you consider that Romeo spends more time talking than anyone else in the play.

And yet these two are the most famous star-crossed lovers in literature. Romeo knew, or more precisely Shakespeare knew, that women — and female readers — love a man who doesn’t give away the store.

In general, Shakespeare’s female lovers lavish a larger share of their lines on their men than the men do on them. This is true not just of “Romeo and Juliet,” but of “Macbeth,” “The Taming of the Shrew” and all four couples in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” The only real exceptions, tellingly, occur in the plays where the women pose as men: “Twelfth Night” and “The Merchant of Venice.” (Antony and Cleopatra spend roughly equal shares of lines on each other.)

:lol: There’s more egalitarian relationship communication when the women pose as men. Says it all, really. But you feminists keep telling manboobs to emote like girls; that’ll really make them more attractive to women.

Forget modern culture in its totality. Everything important you need to know about men and women you can find in the works of Shakespeare.

Read Full Post »

Robert Cialdini is an expert in psychological manipulation, i.e., goal-oriented communication. (Something we all do, more or less successfully, whether we are aware of our own machinations or not.) He wrote the seminal book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. What you may not know is that Cialdini was, in many respects, a founding father of Game. He is cited by many well-regarded pickup artists, and his ideas, like “social proof”, percolate throughout the game literature. Game has had, from its inception. some pretty solid scientific, theoretical, and experiential backing.

Something else you probably don’t know: Cialdini was tapped, along with other renowned behavioral scientists, by the 2008 Obama campaign to help propel Obama to the highest office in the land.

Two weeks before Election Day, Barack Obama’s campaign was mobilizing millions of supporters; it was a bit late to start rewriting get-out-the-vote (GOTV) scripts. “BUT, BUT, BUT,” deputy field director Mike Moffo wrote to Obama’s GOTV operatives nationwide, “What if I told you a world-famous team of genius scientists, psychologists and economists wrote down the best techniques for GOTV scripting?!?! Would you be interested in at least taking a look? Of course you would!!”

Moffo then passed along guidelines and a sample script from the Consortium of Behavioral Scientists, a secret advisory group of 29 of the nation’s leading behaviorists. The key guideline was a simple message: “A Record Turnout Is Expected.” That’s because studies by psychologist Robert Cialdini and other group members had found that the most powerful motivator for hotel guests to reuse towels, national-park visitors to stay on marked trails and citizens to vote is the suggestion that everyone is doing it. “People want to do what they think others will do,” says Cialdini, author of the best seller Influence. “The Obama campaign really got that.”

The existence of this behavioral dream team — which also included best-selling authors Dan Ariely of MIT (Predictably Irrational) and Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago (Nudge) as well as Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman of Princeton — has never been publicly disclosed, even though its members gave Obama white papers on messaging, fundraising and rumor control as well as voter mobilization. All their proposals — among them the famous online fundraising lotteries that gave small donors a chance to win face time with Obama — came with footnotes to peer-reviewed academic research. “It was amazing to have these bullet points telling us what to do and the science behind it,” Moffo tells TIME. “These guys really know what makes people tick.”

Cialdini’s theories about the nature of human psychology and his influence on the American elite are evidence of the triumph of Game. Game has infused every facet of the body politic, not just the sexual organs. As CH has said many times already, if you can game a woman into bed you can game a boss into handing you a raise or a nation’s voters into electing you President.

That is the awesomely dark power of Game. And dark it is, because what is essentially remote control of another person’s executive brain function is the kind of power that irresistibly pulls one to malevolent ends.

President Obama is still relying on behavioral science. But now his Administration is using it to try to transform the country. Because when you know what makes people tick, it’s a lot easier to help them change.

You can thank Game for our first two-term halfling SWPL President and the nationalization of 1/7th of the economy. Now, if Game can do that, imagine what it can do on bored girls at bars yearning for a little excitement in their lives.

Some have said the 21st Century will be the age of biology. I think what we are entering is the age of Orwellian mastery over human psychology. Scarily, the two might be related. The power to shape people’s opinions and emotions through mere word and expression, and guide them to actions they may not have taken otherwise, is reaching an apotheosis that could be magnified a thousandfold coupled with the power to alter people’s genetic architecture.

If your eyes are open, you don’t have to look far to see foreboding signs of this new age of the human aquarium rising into view. Unaccountable secret government agencies using the internet to “manipulate, deceive and destroy reputations”. Your webcam commandeered by shadowy operatives. Cameras on every street corner. Cathedralsourced slanderswarms of crimethinkers.

Cialdini’s name has been found in NSA documents. I wouldn’t be surprised if the man himself is working for them.

Doubters can snark about “PUAs” to their hearts’ content, but the arc of recent history is proving that PUAs were at the leading edge all along. Will people listen only when it’s too late?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,832 other followers

%d bloggers like this: